Jump to content

kinophile

Members
  • Content Count

    1,588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

kinophile last won the day on May 24 2018

kinophile had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About kinophile

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,033 profile views
  1. Ahh - do you mean "dead vehicle sees all units spotted by player's entire force, even if the dead vehicle could not actually see those units itself"?
  2. Ive found a combo of street fighting with an exterior flanking force (usually through the little village at left, then across the river and up over the slope in front) is good. But that force must NOT break out too soon. Also, Peter has some nasty AI plans in there, so keeping that flanking force as a mobile, last ditch reserve is very useful. I once had to return the entire force (1.5 pltns plus 2 atgm teams) to deal with a very bad MBT charge up the main street. Brilliant scenario, one I very consciously emulate and keep in mind when designing. Its cray-cray v. humans
  3. kinophile

    How do you counter tanks with ERA?

    UKR can be depressing. I recently fired 3 ATGM in quick succession against a T72. Just got soaked up by the ERA. Made the next few turns very exciting, which is why I play UKR in the first place. :) The lesson is that with RUS ATGM you're not guaranteed a kill, buts probable. With UKR ATGM you really better have a back-up plan and assume 50/50 failure. With US its fire n forget, brah. Press the trigger and refresh Facebook.
  4. Very well put. Also good for Last Stand type fights. I've a Urban map in my head for Human v fanatical AI. Only possible with that ballast. @Sgt.SquareheadI haven't had the pleasure of your Mosul map but I assume you're using this approach to maximise the AIs "tenacity".
  5. Got quite the aggressive keyboard diarrhea yourself, bud.
  6. Tzk tsk, needs some Proper Reading refreshers...
  7. I doubt any AI, even in more well funded or advanced games, could stand against a human oppo for 4 hours. We're just too devious and oriented for pattern analysis. Give us lo g enough and we'll spot the AIs tendency to something then use it against it. Actually, though, I read recently about an AI bring developed using StarCraft 2 that is, apparently, quite the mother****er to play against. But starcraft is super simple in terrain, units and "weapons tech ", in comparison to CMBS. Only the most basic principles of tactics still apply. CM/CMBS though is wayyy more unforgiving and unpredictable, plus SC/SC2 doesn't really provide for The point being that it is, tome, inherently pointless to provide AI plans for 2hrs+ battles. These longer battles are really human affairs. Of course, my current building scenario/campaign (in limbo due to workload) has a battle that us essentially a 2 hour scramble to escape RUS AI forces, and its hard (to fight). For the AI I kept it super simple - company 1, attack here. Even then, but 1.5 hours I'm running out of orders and most players have the measure of the AI also.
  8. 55 mins is insane for assault on a built up area. "Maybe" ok for a race through rough/open countryside Maybe....
  9. I dunno if thats been tweaked for CMBS, but if I get a unit broken it takes a loooong time to come back to even being able to move. Also, a broken unit is almost always down to its last guys, so it becomes gamey (for me) to, e.g., take a broken unit and try to claw a VP or two. I prefer to leave the shell shocked pixels alone. This time issue (and it most certainly is one) seems to have several facets: It's driven by the Scenario Designer BFC "could" tweak it/improve it/expand it... but given their long, long, long list of TBDs I'd say it would end up on a sticky note stuck to the sole of Charles' shoe... So, it comes down to best practice by Designers in general Which means ...umm suck it up or design a Scenario ourselves It could be useful to have a more explanatory and exploratory section in the Designer's manual about Time, as a specific Scenario Design concept - scenario length, rationales, historical precedents, comparisons of RL events v. correlated in-game Scenarios. Essentially, some pointers/suggestions from BFC (via experienced SDs) as a PDF. Other than that, I think we're always going to be rolling the dice each time we open a new, user made scenario...
  10. Thus is very true. I personally rarely put the full battalion in play right from the top (in a scenario). The maps just don't fit them properly, especially given CMBS spotting ranges. MOUT battles are another deal if course. @Sgt.Squarehead I don't have CMSF, still on the fence ref #2. Your Mosul scenario/map is fascinating though. What starting force arrangements do you have (roughly)?
  11. Actually..... I'm building campaign spread over 24 hours, along a 10/15km AO, with map edge to map edge. Each scebario has ****LOADS of time because the pressure in battle is from: 1. The nature of the campaign (escaping encirclement 2. The crossing of multiple force axis, at various angles. No need for time ****ery, just the terror of know the enemy are nearby and actively hunting you with hea y forces, yet you must keep pushing into them. I consider this ana organic difficulty increase, rather than artificially forced due to not enough time to cross the map and realistically gave a force at t hr e end. I'm being very strict with myself with this, for all the good reason s noted above. Modern war already speeds everything and is WAY to lethal to charge through. The bad time constrains I feel sometimes reflect the pace of the WW2 pace, but without referencing just how dangerous CMBS is to rushers.
  12. Calm down. This forum doesn't need this kind of acidic negativity. It's the the interwebs, lad. Nothing is real, nothing matters. Give the emotional outrage a rest.
  13. I particularly dislike the time frames aspect. I'd prefer to Lose points exponentially as I go over the target, but still have that ability - to go past the alotted timespan by whatever I need (not just the 15mins generally allowed). I find far too many scenarios are rushing me, and I'm not an overly cautious player by any stretch. I enjoy cracking the tactical problem, not the artificial rush to do so.Most scenarios seem to almost be timed training exercises. By contrast I'm fighting a large scenario separately with 3 different players and I've deliberately given us 2.5 hours. It's a complex fight and adding a timed finish gate to it is irrelevant to the story. It might add more "tension" but it's a hell of a hard fight already. My personal preference, is all.
×